At ClearSpan Systems, a routine product review turns into a micro-conflict (spat) when Katya cuts short Keith’s explanation by calling it “basic.” What follows is not a debate about the product, but a live test of how a team handles dismissive communication in real-time, using the Spatz process to move from verbal caution to formal review and resolution.
People
- Objector: Keith
- Infringer: Katya
0. Verbal Caution (in person)
Time: Thursday 15:40
Place: ClearSpan Systems, product review meeting
Keith:
“Katya, quick verbal caution. When you said ‘we don’t need to go into details, this is basic’ while I was explaining the risks, that felt dismissive. I’m fine with disagreement, but not with shutting down explanation.”
Katya:
“I wasn’t shutting you down, I was just trying to keep things efficient.”
1. Official Caution (SpatzChat™ at an appropriate time after meeting)
Keith:
Time: Thursday 16:30
Place: After the product review meeting
“I’m issuing an official caution. You described my points as ‘basic’ and cut off further explanation. I’m objecting to the communication behavior, not the product decision.”
Katya:
“I disagree. I didn’t insult you. I was managing time.”
2. Official Objection
Keith:
“I’m escalating to an objection. The behaviour I’m objecting to is dismissing an explanation by labelling it ‘basic’ and stopping discussion. I’m seeking a simple apology.”
Katya:
“I still don’t accept that I did anything inappropriate. This feels like overreacting.”
3. Stop
Keith:
“I’m calling Stop. This will go to Spatz Review.”
4. Spatz Review Summary
Review Panel Input (Team + AI):
Observed facts:
- Katya said “we don’t need to go into details, this is basic”.
- Keith attempted to explain technical risk.
- Katya denied any problematic behaviour at all stages.
Assessment:
- Phrase qualifies as dismissive of contribution.
- Proportionality: escalation aligned with Spatz process.
- Issue is behavioural, not technical.
Decision:
Objection upheld.
5. Acceptable Apology
Katya:
“What I did: I labelled your explanation as ‘basic’ and cut off discussion.
Why I did it: I was focused on speed and underestimated the impact.
What I’ll do differently: I’ll manage time without dismissing contributions.”
Keith:
“Accepted.”
Outcome:
Micro-conflict resolved at ClearSpan Systems.
Category: dismissive shutdown
Resolution level: Stop → Review → Apology
Team OQ (Objective Quotient) impact: corrective learning logged
Object123 
Leave a comment